tv Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer Current April 26, 2012 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
>> let's rangers and let's go cenk. have a great night. ♪ ♪ [ theme music ] ♪ welcome to "viewpoint" with eliot spitzer. i'm cenk uygur sitting in tonight. guess what we're going to have an awesome show. in fact, i have great news for you right from the top. we have found a budgeting congress that actually balances the budget! look at this. does deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion. it does spending cuts of $1.7 billion, a revenue increase of $3.9 trillion but it even has public investment of
$1.7 trillion. the republicans nailed this one. what? i'm hearing that's not a republican budget. i'm hearing the republican budget actually had a $4 trillion deficit. in fact that is the congressional progressive caucus budget. it actually balances the budget! you remember the last time we balanced the budget. who was that under? oh, that was a democratic president. bill clinton. you remember the last republican president who balanced the budget? no, of course you don't. you know why? it was dwight eisenhower. republicans never balance the budget and we have this wonderful budget with great priorities, and matches the polling in the country perfectly. it says time for the rich to pay their fair share and they raise taxes on them. the majority of the country say
cut defense spending. and it does. so since it makes so much sense it is totally and utterly ignored in washington, d.c. so what do they do? they have got to have hearings on their own, because proposals are not being heard. so today there was a hearing on how to prevent the 1 million foreclosures in america. in the first quarter of this year, we had in 26 out of the 50 major metro areas, so obviously half of those places foreclosure rates went up. in fact homeownership has hit a decade low. it is all the way down to 62% of americans owning a home. so obviously the progressive caucus is trying to figure a way out of this. how do we help those people? so of course the rest of washington goes, look at these guys they want to help people? what you care about your voters
or something? and hence it is not getting much coverage. but we'll cover them. keith ellison from the great state of minnesota is here. >> good to be here. thank you for having us. >> absolutely. first tell me what hand at the hearing today. >> what happened was that new york attorney general made a presentation, talked about the settlement, talked about the -- what is going to happen next, outlined his goals, said that what he wanted to see is more accountability, as you know given all of the fraud and corruption, lying, tricky no one has been held accountable, so he focused on that. then he mentioned we have got to help homeowners more. because homeowners have not been given the help they need or
anything approaching the numbers that are needed. and he wanted to make sure and enlist our assistance in making sure the story is told right. so the republicans are saying that the community reinvestment act is to blame, saying that homeownership goals are to blame. really what is to blame is their massive deregulation of financial markets which caused the massive crash. after the financial regulation of the great depression, we went a number of decades with no real problems until we started dismantling financial regulation, starting in 1999 and the story both you and/know we got disaster in 2007 8 and even now. >> people say, things crash all the time. there's nothing you can do about it. that's a total lie. >> that's a lie. >> when there was regulations of
the bank things did not crash. we were excited that there was a task force that was going to be headed, but the new york daily news says they don't have an office yet they don't have a phone number yet s&l crisis which was smaller had a thousand agents. did he talk about that? >> yes he did. he said we need you to push that this -- this task force be adequately resourced to the challenge at hand. and he made it real clear that they have got to have the staff, resources, office, the personnel, and he made it clear that that was his aim. i mean, i think he has the gutings and the brains but what is missing is the resources, and as members of congress we believe it is our responsibility to demand the proper resources are appropriated, so homeowners
can get the help that they need given that so many people are under water and losing their homes. foreclosure is up, as you said correctly. so that's a real issue. we have got to be practical, and our job is to fight for resources, and that is what we're going to do. >> so it's now the time of the program to keep it real. >> keep i it real. >> and part of the reason that the attorney general snyderman does not have those resources is because the obama administration promised it to them and they haven't delivered it yet. i have seen other people involved in that settlement with the banks, basically bragging about how they snookered snyderman, and how they won't do anything to address foreclosures. so what is your sense of that here? is the obama administration dragging its heels here? >> brother, you know, the
question is always what are we going do it about it? i'm going to keep it real and tell you i can't control the obama administration. all i can do is work with my colleagues in congress and we can raise a ruckus, talk to you, organize forums, go around the country, and we can turn the temperature up to make them do the right thing or shame them if they don't. >> go ahead, shame them. >> well, that's -- that's -- this is one of our steps along that road. we're giving them a chance to do the right thing, but we're not going to let eric snyderman drift in obscurity. we all were proud when he was holding up the settlement. they wanted to do a worse deal than was done. now we are going to make sure we squeeze all of the water our of the sponge and start by highlighting the good of this deal and say we're not going to
tolerate him getting inadequate support. >> i have a clear perspective. i'm a progressive. so i love that you are doing that, but we also have to put pressure on the obama administration. >> i agree. >> you remember their program that was supposed to help with with mortgage adjustments they only spent 6.6% of it. do you know what is going on? why are they not making this a priority at all? >> i have to say i don't know what is holding up the train. i can say this there are members of this congress many of whom are in the progressive caucus but the whole california delegation is upset about the lack of progress. we need more progress. we have got to help more homeowners and hold some people accountable, and this thing will not be swept under the rug.
we have already seen 4 million foreclosures, and we could see more. for me, you know there's a little girl somewhere in america being told by her daddy and mommy that this is not her room anymore and they have to go. and that is a shame. that is a sin. and i'm not going to stand back and tolerate it and knighter is the progressive caucus. so we're stepping up and turning up the temperature, and we need your help to tell the story. this is a big deal but we have got to overcome cynicism. the big boys whooped us again. no, we're not buying that story. we're going to fight until we get justice. >> i hear you on that. and i any one of the biggest impediments is tim geithner to be fired. i think he is their man in
washington. we'll do a whole segment on that next. >> i think demarco needs to be fired. that's one person that needs to be fired. and geithner needs to be judged by whether or not we're having success in dealing with the foreclosure crisis, and so far, it's not looking good. >> all right. that's clear enough. all right. congressman keith ellison thank you so much for joining us on "viewpoint." we really appreciate it. >> yes, sir. >> all right. when we return we'll talk about tim geithner. he of course went out today and said the banks, there is nothing we can do about poor us. i'll correct him in a massive way when we come back. ♪ this show is my fix. [[vo]]this former two-term governor is ...
time for the number of the day, 280,000. that is the number of children that will be kicked out of getting school lunches and breakfasts if the republicans get their way. in fact it would be part of overall 1.8 million people being kicked out of basically the food stamp people. and why are they going to do that? one, my god we don't want you to get comfortable. it will make you lazy. get alone of allen west. he says: >> yeah that's the problem. the poor are just way too come forable. right? by the way they could restore that and those 280,000 kids
could eat if they just got rid of the oil subsidy. we would have $7 billion left over. but the republican priority is protect the oil companies, and make sure that you kick the poor, and kick them out of that program, because you wouldn't want them to get too comfortable. they are outrageous. when we come back unfortunately they are not the only ones. our treasury secretary is also outrageous. there is a reason why the bankers call him, quote, our man in washington. >>thats... nice. nice sweater. >>ya? >>ya. >>but i told you i have the ugliest sweaters.
it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com our treasury secretary was described as one of the top anchors in the country, as quote, our man in washington. and boy, how accurate is that and tim geithner tried to prove
them right today. he said, quote vrment well, you have a funny way of showing it mr. treasury secretary by not enforcing the laws of the land and what a wonderful republican position. maybe we didn't do anything. but we're number 1! no you are not. you are dead last in enforcement. you know the only banker who has been arrested? a 28-year-old. they didn't go after any of the executives. then the statute of limitations runs out, and then they go golly gee we can't prosecute them for that fraud that happened in 2007. and he goes on:
wrong again, bob. that's exactly what you are supposed to do. put a limit on derivatives so they don't take these wild risks, and separate our deposits from their wild gambling. you can separate those two things. you are push really, really hard for it. you haven't pushed for it at all. tim geithner. i can't do anything. i'm only the treasury secretary. here is something else you could do. you could prosecute them! he says is this really about law enforcement? yes! tom montag said about this deal called timber wolf by that timber wolf was one, let's say crappy deal. he is making money off of those clients laughing at them -- that's called fraud, tim! that's called fraud. you don't know that?
you know that. but you are their man in washington. and remember karl lefen talking about this deal. [ censor bleep ] deal [ censor bleep ] deal [ censor bleep ] deal [ censor bleep ] deal [ censor bleep ] deal. >> so it's not like tim geithner can't know about it. there is a united states senator telling you over and over again here is one you could prosecute. well there are plenty of others. how about angelo mozilo who got rewarded hundreds of millions of dollars for his fraud. he said: and of course that's the product he was saying publicly what a wonderful product we have for you guys. that's called fraud! we had a special inspector
general come out and tell us what was going on. everybody said tarp got paid back. no, it didn't. here is what she said: conveniently. tim geithner says i don't know. we have to digest this really slow. and then she going on: and now i tell you that because that fraud had a price and that was $60 billion out of your pocket, my pocket all of our pockets. they stole $60 billion from us! that's not a little fraud! that's a gigantic fraud. and here we have a guy making excuses. what can i do you know?
wheels of justice were slow. they were greedy. then step aside, because you suck at your job. is that clear enough. let's bring in matt stoller fellow at the roosevelt institute. matt, tell me if you think he is dragging his heels. >> it's the policy of this administration and the last administration to preserve the capital structure of the banks. and in many cases these businesses are predator so they have to overlook systemic law breaking. >> you are saying their job, whether it's tim geithner or the obama administration, is to preserve this fraudulent infrastructure. why do you say that?
one is -- i get it the proof is in the pudding. but do you really think president obama is in on this? why would he do that? >> i'm not sure, you know what is in his soul but he seems to believe that -- you know, these bankers who are the ceos of goldman sachs and jpmorgan are just smart good businessmen. and he doesn't think they have really done anything wrong. that's his -- i don't know what psychological mindset compels him to think that but that's what he thinks. for instance he just signed the jobs act which deregulates certain types of companies go public to use the public markets. he just doesn't really believe
in regulation and enforcing rules. >> so if we go with mitt romney you know he is not going to be any better -- >> i'm not sure about that. >> really? why? >> if you look at mitt romney's career, it has been about moving where the political winds are. and the interesting thing is that barack obama is far less flexible in terms of his policy approach than mitt romney has been. so mitt romney you can't really -- he changes his positions fairly frequently -- >> but he is funded 100% by wall street. there's no way that you are going to move -- if mitt romney that has one position that is movable, if it's one position that is immovable that is he going to help wall street. >> that's probably true. but you asked a relative question. and we know what barack obama's policy architecture is to perpetuate these fraud machines
and help them out and overrule and storm roll everybody who wants to take them on. we don't know what mitt romney's architecture is. i don't think he'll pursue a different architecture, but he was a private equity guy. let me be clear i am putting my hope in the public. the public has shown an unwillingness to take on barack obama. i think the public is far more willing to take on mitt romney. and they may say no you have to justify your policies. for whatever reason when barack obama comes out and talking about any of issues that we know he is lying on the public is sort of sleepy. >> so he gets the democrats
progressives and liberals to lie down. so whereas mitt romney if he was president we would fight harder. >> look at keith ellison who said well, you know, we're really going to push hard. it's like no, you are not. he didn't embarrass him. he didn't say you are responsible for millions of foreclosures. if keith ellison or democrats were serious about taking on the administration and change their policy architecture they would be serious about it. they would have impeachment resolutions against these people for not enforcing the laws. but they are not serious. they would be serious if it were up to mitt romney. barney frank said that hank pahlsson offered to write down mortgages if the democrat congress would unlock the second trench of tarp money but only if barack obama would agree to
it. so barney frank went to barack obama and said i can get them to do this deal and obama said no. his policies were worse than the busch administration. because he is unwilling to be pushed in the right direction by people who know what they are doing. >> he think there is no political cost to going -- >> barack obama is a [ inaudible ]. he is a strong rigid view on what is right, and he doesn't move evidence be damned. >> matt stoller fellow not afraid to take on president obama from the left. number one problem is money in politics, as long as democrats and republicans get elected by taking a huge sum of money from donors they are going to do what those donors tell them to do. that's how the system works, that's why we have got to get the money out of politics.
when we come back we'll do viewfinder and have some fun with some fun videos. including joe biden. [ woman ] oh, my gosh -- it's so good! [ kristal ] we're just taking a sample of all our different items in our festival of shrimp so we can describe them to our customers. [ male announcer ] red lobster's festival of shrimp starts now! for just $12.99, pair any two of 9 exciting shrimp creations like new barbeque glazed shrimp or crab stuffed shrimp. the crab-stuffed shrimp are awesome! [ woman ] very creamy. that's a keeper! [ woman ] shrimp skewer. [ woman #2 ] sweet, smoky. [ man ] delicious! [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] any combination just $12.99! [ woman ] so what are ya'lls favorites? [ group ] everything! [ laughter ]
approaching act i.v. you had hundreds of women show up, thousands signed petitions. they made their voices heard. what happens is that now, the legislators are running scared. very similar laws have passed quietly in other states for the past 10 years, really in the past two years have intensified. pennsylvania a similar law was shelved, idaho this proved to be political poison. women are paying attention and having their voices heard. >> thanks for coming in. >> the aclu considers a demand that to get a job you have to let an employer open your private mail, the senate wants to make it illegal to hand over a password to your facebook account.
all right. we are back in a moment we'll discuss john mccain calling the war on women imaginary. i will strongly correct him on that. but we're going to do view finer first. we have unfortunate sexual innuendo from the dalai lama and joe biden. >> look at that. look at that. all right there he is. [ cheers ] >> joe biden is the republican party [ inaudible ]. >> i promise you the president has [ inaudible ]. >> the one fantasy i have and the secret service people look at me like i might do it is to walk right out the front door
and just keep talking. >> one person stayed by your side. your loving wife callista. >> if you spent any time watching msnbc lately you should change the batteries on your remote they are obviously dead. >> what does mitt romney stand for? >> what he thinks is good governance. >> i can't get more lean than that -- >> and now hilary has reached the pinnacle that all she is, is a secretary. >> oh my god. they can't give it to the kid. they actually are like rubbing it in the kid's face. [ applause ] ♪ >> everybody sometimes slips.
i never do but everyone sometimes slips. [ laughter ] >> i wish i hadn't seen that conan as callista. that is going to haunt me in my dreams. unfortunately it looked pretty realistic. and by the way give the kid the ball. what is the matter with you? that's unamerican. when we come back, john mccain says the war on women is imaginary. i'll give him evidence when we return. mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.
i look at her, and i just want to give her everything. yeah you -- you know, everything can cost upwards of...[ whistles ] i did not want to think about that. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me. three words, dad -- e-trade financial consultants. so i can just go talk to 'em? just walk right in and talk to 'em. dude those guys are pros. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. they'll -- wa-- wa-- wait a minute. bobby? bobby! what are you doing, man? i'm speed dating! [ male announcer ] get investing advice for your family at e-trade. john mccain was speaking on the floor of the senate and he says war on women? what is so? >> my friends this supposed war on women or the use of similarly
outlandish rhetoric has two purposes, and both are political in their purpose and effect. the first purely political. the first is to distract citizens from real issues that really matter, and the second is to give talking heads something to sputter about when they appear on cable television. i don't believe the ludicrous partisan posturing that has conjured up this imagine air war. >> my friends the ludicrous imagine air war on women as he said. all right. senator mccain let me give you evidence. first of all today the violence against women act actually passed as my mom would say thanks, god. 68/31. do you want to know who the 31 that voted against it were? all republican men. if you think that's bad.
across the state, according to think progress there has been close to one thousand pieces of legislation proposed by republicans to take away re reproductive rights on women. and rick scott the governor of florida took about $1.5 million from rape crisis centers. let's go to wisconsin, scott walker said equal pay? do you really need equal pay? he repealed the law that was in favor of giving equal pay to women. overall in the nation for every dollars a man makes a woman makes $0.77. in wisconsin it's even worse. war on women? what do you mean? we just want to keep making more
money than you, and take away your reproductive rights and take away ripe crisis centers. how about the lilly ledbetter act. that's the first thing that president obama did. i have to give the republicans credit here. three republicans in the house voted for it and five senators that were republicans voted for it. every other republican in congress said no we do not want equal pay for women for the same jobs. what war on women? i don't know what you are talking about. it's all imagine air except for the thousands of pieces of legislation that we are trying to pass in this country to make sure women don't get paid as much, and if they get any kind of trouble in terms of the rape crisis centers, they don't get help there and then when you call them out on it they act
shocked and chagrinned. including, of course michele bachmann. >> there is no war on women. there has never been a war on women. >> oh, really? you have a funny way of showing it. of course, they say, no no it's okay we have a woman on our side. now do we seem more credible? no, you seem less credible. i'm going to bring in laura bass set. a reporter for the "huffington post" who has been covering this throughout. good to have you here. >> thanks for having me. >> john mccain said you made this whole thing up. is there any chance that the democrats made the republicans propose all of those pieces of legislation? all right. laura -- let's try this again. any chance that the democrats actually made the republicans pass all of this legislation that they proposed? >> there's no chance that the
democrats made the republicans pass anything. i think that it's possible for republicans to take issue with the rhetoric, you know war on women. sure it's strong language, they are not lining up women and shooting them. but short of doing that, there has certainly been a sustained legislative attack on women's rights and women's health. the thousand laws that have been pass and just the rhetoric of the gop governors and senator, saying for instance, pennsylvania governor saying well, you know, if we force women to have ultrasounds that they don't need, and put the ultrasound image in front of their face all they have to do is close their eyes. it's just a brushing off of women's issues especially health issues that is
disconcerting. >> yeah, it is chilly to hear talk like that. it looked like for a second there was going to be a war on you. i don't know what happened there. [ laughter ] >> let's watch john mccain on the floor. >> to suggest that one group of us, or one party speaks for all women, or one group has an agenda to harm women, and another to help them is ridiculous. >> now laura he says it is ridiculous. i have had guests on "the young turks" who are republicans, that say it is just laws that pop up. so you tracked this. now all of those pieces of legislation, taking away reproductive rights, equal wages, et cetera et cetera. were any of them proposed by democrats? >> it was all republicans. everything that you mentioned was passed by republicans. the ultrasound bills. the anti-contraception bills.
wisconsin secretly repealing the equal pay act. taking away protections for domestic violence issues. it is all initiated and voted for by republicans. so i don't understand how you can say this is not one party or the other, and it is reflected in the gender gap. women -- obama is resinating with women far more than romney is. and i don't think that they are basing that on nothing. so the republicans don't really have a leg to stand on here. >> so now there was a scuffle between john bainer and nancy pelosi overtaking money out off education. they were going to cut the loans for college students. on this one john boehner said we were taking it away from a slush fund. and nancy pelosi said you were
taking it away from women. >> what she is talking about is the preventative health fund which it is a little bit ridiculous to call it a slush fund. it is certainly not a slush fund and a lot of that goes toward preventative health care for women. and then of course immunizations for children, and breastfeeding support. i mean there's a lot of parts of that bill that do help women a lot. i think the real question we should be asking is why take money away from preventative health care at all when you could be closing loopholes for millionaire millionaires. she is right it will hurt a lot of women. >> one last thing on that john boehner used very strong language today calling the president pathetic et cetera. and there seems to be a different standard in washington, laura, that republicans can say whatever
they want about democrats and it's not even frowned upon. whereas if the president says anything, oh, my god they act like they have been so hurt. like, it's a war. republicans. boo-hoo hoo, and they cry and cry and cry. is there a different standard here? >> i don't know that there is. i think when george bush was president he took as much heat from the democrats and as much nasty language as the republicans are using now. i think they are starting to feel desperate, and i think when they start to get scared the claws come out, and that's what you are seeing now. >> when bush was president, i was the one using those bad words. [ laughter ] >> but not congressional leaders. >> fair enough. >> the congressional leaders were far too timid in taking on
bush. all right. when we come back i'll give you my view on the drone program in yemen. do you know we're executing people without even knowing who we are bombing. literally. i'll show you the details of the program. they are unbelievable. do that when we come back. [ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪
[ male announcer ] cookies with smooth caramel and chocolate. ♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter. earlier in the show we were talk about keeping it real. these are two guys keeping it real. they will be on the program in a little bit. all right. now it's time for my view. as if the rest of the show wasn't my view. we're going to talk about a drone program we're running in yemen.
you are familiar with drone programs they are the unmanned flying vehicles, and we drop a bomb on somebody's ass and we kill them. and it's much better than an invasion if you ask me. now having said that there's a very, very troubling aspect of this program. i'm going to let the washington post explain. this is their first paragraph in explaining the story. it says: are you with me? that that is amazing? we don't even know who we're firing these drone strikes at. you know, that when we fire those bombs, we're not kidding. everybody on the ground dies. we don't even know who they are. we're like let's just go for it.
when we know who we are killing, that's called a personality strike. they have a word for it. and when we don't know that's called a signature strike. there was some activity around there, maybe guns, and we heard chatter, et cetera, et cetera, must be bad guys except sometimes it's not bad guys. we support the insurgents in yemen and we might be killing them instead. we have done four strikes in under four months in yemen. there are experts on yemen saying this doesn't help us. it hurts our cause. in fact since we have killed some in yemen the amount of people joining al-qaeda has increased not decreased. we have to stop these nearly indiscriminate drone strikes when we don't even know who is down there. we kill civilians and turn the
population against us. and by the way, this is really important, it's also immoral. we're supposed to be the shining city on a hill. we're supposed to be america. we're supposed to be better than that. i hope we get back to that america they know and love. all right. when we come back tavis smiley, and cornel west. viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said
"i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪ the newest voice in cable news is on the new news network. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. this former two term governor is
between the years of 2000 and 2010 we did massive tax cuts for the rich? how did that work out for us? it turns out not so well. in that decade the poverty rate increased dramatically. it's now at 15.1%, 46 million people live below the poverty line in america. i thought we were going to get trickle down. what happened? if something is trickling, it ain't wealth that's for sure. and when we did recover from the gigantic recession that those tax cuts caused, that went to the top 1% as well. 9d 3% of the economic recovery went to the top 1%. the rest of us got to share 7% but the rich not much much richer. i know who guys who are sick and tired of that and they are
tavis smiley and dr. cornel west. they wrote the book "the rich and the rest of us." and they join us right now. let me start with dr. west. what went wrong? why under a democratic president, for example, did we not get a recovery that helped all of us, but seemed to have helped mainly the top 1%? >> my dear brother cenk what we have is structural tendencies in the system itself so it is designed in such a way that the wealth goes up wages stagnate decline, and it is true for both parties. the democrats are better than the republicans in terms of making gestures, but in terms of the actual suffering, we need to look that -- poor people and working people are suffering. >> tavis, i know you have taken
a lot of heat for criticizing the obama administration. why take that on when you know you are going to take the heat. and what got you so worked up that you were willing to go to that step? >> i prefer to say holding the president accountable as opposed to criticizing them. my job in the media and the job you do so well every day is about holding people accountable and not allowing them to push agendas that won't help the rest of us and coddle those who happen to be wealthy in this country. you are trying to find the courage, commitment, and conviction to raise your voice to help the rest of us. we don't see poverty as just a cultural or economic issue, but it is also the moral and spiritual issue of our time. and poverty threatens our very
democracy, we argue that poverty is a matter of national security. there is no priority given to the poor in this country, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus in washington that the poor don't matter. >> what are you guys crazy? we got wars to fight. we can't worry about our own poor people. seriously i love you guys are bringing out this issue, because apparently no one else in washington gives a dang, because they don't seem to be talking about it at all. a lot of people are thinking wait a minute, we know the republicans aren't with us and if the democrats haven't fixed it, then what hope do we have in how do we go about fixing the system? >> well, my dear brother we build on the legacy of reverend king and others, you had to be willing to go to jail, tell the
truth, and bare witness. brother martin said the bombs dropped in vietnam, landed on our reservations and our brown brothers and sisters. we make -- we need to dot the i's and see the intimate link not enough money for education and housing. >> how do we get the politicians to actually listen to the voters? because on so many issues the voters are so clear, over 80% said for the love of god tax the richard! >> yeah. >> mitt romney paided a 13 14% tax rate when he has a quarter of a billion dollars, but they won't do it. >> poverty can be so
debilitating debilitating. we do have voices that need to be lifted, occupy wall street movement reminings each and every one of us that we can make a difference and push politicians to pay attention. president obama is sounding a much more populous theme these days because he is being pushed. great presidents are made. they have to be pushed into their greatness. there is no lbj if there is no mlk pushing him. we do lay out 12 poverty reducing ideas that we got to talk about in this campaign. this the last race for the white house you'll recall in three presidential debates there the word poor or poverty didn't come up one time. fast forward four years one out of two americans are either in or near poverty, half of america is either in poverty or low
income. you can't sustain a democracy that way as i said earlier. the time is now to have a conversation about poverty. we can't just talk about the angst of the middle class given that the new poor are the former middle class. >> your point on lbj is so well-taken and he said not only martin luther king pushed him but also malcolm x. when president does the speeches now on the campaign trail do you believe him? >> yes and no. yes, because there's an element of populism that he leans toward. and no because you look at who he chooses. he is still so tight to pluto crats that only